JOURNALISTIC DIPLOMACY: MASS MEDIA'S NEW ROLE IN THE CONDUCT OF

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Author(s): William J. Stover
Source: Peace Research , JULY, 1981, Vol. 13, No. 3 (JULY, 1981), pp. 113-118
Published by: Canadian Mennonite University

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23684902

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Canadian Mennonite University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Peace Research

This content downloaded from

109.93.83.143 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JULY, 1981 VOLUME 13 NUMBER 3

JOURNALISTIC DIPLOMACY: MASS MEDIA'S NEW ROLE IN

THE CONDUCT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

William J. Stover
Political Science, University of Santa Clara, CA 95053

Much of the information we get about the world comes through

mass media. Few people have the opportunity to travel widely and
observe international conditions. Most rely on journalists to
keep them informed about world affairs. To the extent that mass
media are successful in their presentation of this information,
people may come to view the world as a widely extended family,
understanding the fragility of this planet and the need for inter
national cooperation and peace.

Recently, however, journalists have added another dimension

to their role as reporters of world events. They have become
active in the conduct of diplomacy, participants in the relations
among states.1 Indeed, there are a number of things that m
media do in international relations which are similar to the
functions of a diplomat.

Both the diplomat and the journalist gather information

from governments, political organizations and people involved in
international affairs. Both have certain advantages and dis
advantages in their information gathering. The diplomat has
access to high level channels of information through his/her
official governmental contacts. However, much information is
denied the diplomat while being available to the journalist.

Diplomatic channels are closed, for example, between the

United States government and certain national liberation organi
zations: the Palestine Liberation Organization and,during the
War, the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam. During the
pre-revolutionary period in Iran, mass media had better access
both to religious leaders like the Ayatollah Khomeini and to
Iranian revolutionaries. Khomeini, who was exiled in France,
literally directed the anti-Shah movement by means of cassette
tapes that were smuggled into and distributed throughout Iran.
U.S. diplomats were unable to meet regularly with Khomeini, but
journalists had continued accesss.

Diplomats and journalists also disseminate information,

a second function they have in common. The diplomat sends infor
mation to his/her government where it is analyzed, synthesized
and distributed to policy makers. Unfortunately, much of this

PEACE RESEARCH 113

This content downloaded from

109.93.83.143 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JULY, 1981 VOLUME 13 NUMBER 3

information is misinterpreted or simply ignored. American

surprise at the 1973 Middle East War, the revolution in Iran and
the stubborn determination of the Viet Cong attest to our govern
ment's inability to interpret correctly the information which
floods Washington.

Journalists also disseminate messages which can confirm or

refute a government's foreign policy. In the Soviet Union and other
totalitarian states, mass media are controlled and transmit only
what the state wants its citizens to know. In the U.S.S.R., for
example, little is known by the public about combat casualties
that Soviet troops incur in Afghanistan. This limits possible
opposition to government policy.

In the West, however, journalists are independent from the

government, free to criticize policy and consider alternatives.
Mass media dissemination of information in the United States has
preempted traditional diplomatic practice in several ways.

First, the press leak has become an important method of com

munications among nations. For example, Richard Nixon found the
press leak more useful than the diplomatic note when he placed
U.S. forces on strategic alert during the 1973 Middle East War.2
During his Saigon tour, Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge said that
the press leak was the prerogative of the Ambassador, one of
his most powerful tools.3

The media may also signal shifts in government policy.

Leonard Woodcock, the former American representative in China,
caused a diplomatic furor when he said that the United States
would seek full diplomatic relations with China and that lack of
normal relations was "founded on an obvious absurdity."4 The
State Department said that it did not share Woodcock's views, but
the United States soon changed its policy, recognizing the People's
Republic of China.

Second, mass media have changed traditional diplomacy by

providing the diplomat with greater amounts of information.
A diplomat in Washington remarked recently that even one who
speaks and reads English fluently needed six hours to cover
daily political reporting in the United States. Indeed, the
diplomat's fear of being scooped by the journalist has resulted
in a proliferation of reports. Foreign Service Officers in the
United States Department of State produce over 350,000 reports
each year.5
Sometimes mass media disseminates information so well that
even our adversaries depend on these channels of communication.

PEACE RESEARCH 114

This content downloaded from

109.93.83.143 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JULY, 1981 VOLUME 13 NUMBER 3

Before The Pentagon Papers were published in 1971, a copy was

delivered to the Soviet Embassy in Washington. Ambassador
Dobrynin returned the papers to the State Department saying he
preferred to read them in the newspaper.6

United States government officials rely on the mass media

to disseminate information within the foreign policy bureaucracy,
John Kenneth Galbraith, former U.S. ambassador to India, said that
he found it easier to get his views to the President by way of
the Washington Post correspondent in New Delhi than by way of
the State Department.7

Sometimes the mass media are the only open channel for
communication of policy differences among bureaucracies. In late
1965, for example, the state Department wanted to persuade Pre
sident Johnson that bombing North Vietnam close to the Chinese
border was dangerous. Unable to do so through official govern
ment channels, it succeeded in stopping the bombing there after
its warning was reported in the New York Times. 8

It's not only our government which relies on journalists to

disseminate diplomatic information. Other governments and trans
national organizations communicate to our government and people
through mass media. A New York Times editor recently commented
that the sympathies of the average American were overwhelmingly
on the side of the English speaking people of Canada, in part
because the French speaking Canadians have not done a very good
job in communicating their cause to us.9

In communicating national interests in the Middle East, the

Israeli government has been better able to make known its posi
tion through mass media than have Arab states.. This has affected
both public attitudes toward the Middle East conflict as well as
U.S. government policy.

There is a third function that the journalist and diplomat

share. Both affect international relationships and produce
changes in policy. The diplomat does this through negotiation,
and he has certain advantages. He deals with the representative
of another government who is usually authorized to make an
agreement. The result is often a changed international situation,

Journalists are also able to change international relation

ships. The impact is not nearly so direct as that of the diplomat,
but mass media has affected international relations in a number of
ways. First, the journalist has acted as a catalyst in world
affairs, sometimes promoting, sometimes disrupting relations
between states. In February 1977, for example, Secretary of State
Vance was enroute to Jordan for talks with King Hussein. Presi

PEACE RESEARCH 115

This content downloaded from

109.93.83.143 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JULY, 1981 VOLUME 13 NUMBER 3

dent Carter requested the Washington Post to delay a story they

had uncovered about CIA payments to the King until the talks were
finished. The Post refused, and the negotiations between Vance
and Hussein were unproductive. According to one source, they
were a mere formality, and relations between Jordan and the United
States were damaged by mass media.10

On other occasions, journalists have facilitated relations,

specifically in the recognition of Israel by Egypt. Numerous
wars, propaganda, and military skirmishes convinced Israel that
Egypt wanted to drive Israel into the sea. Egyptians, including
Sadat, believed that Israel sought continued expansion into Arab
territory and was acting as an imperialist power.

A number of things came together to change Sadat's mind.

War was no longer an option. Short of equipment, technology
and trained manpower, Egypt could no longer consider the use of
force against Israel as a viable alternative. Moreover, Egyptian
economy was in shambles. Demonstrations and food riots threatened
to topple Sadat, and peace seemed the best way to attract economic
assistance. Finally, Sadat saw an opportunity to reach a mass
audience through a media event, presenting millions of people
all over the world with what he regarded as the Arab's just cause.
Mass media was the catalyst for Sadat's historic mission to Jerusa
lem and he announced his intentions through American television
networks. De facto recognition of Israel after 30 years in fan
fare, embraces and a human touch was viewed via television as a
new beginning to peace.

The diplomatic aspects of mass media have a more sinister

side, however, in a second area where journalists directly affect
international relations. It takes only two or three people to
hijack an airplane or to seize a political hostage. Yet by that
act, these few people can send world-wide propaganda messages and
demands through mass media.

Terrorism is not a new phenomena, to be sure; but it would

not have become so wide spread without the attention given the
terrorist by mass media. In effect, the journalist has turned
terrorism into guerrilla theater, increasing its audience, inci
dence and severity.

In one terrorist strike in the Middle East, for example,

five airplanes were hijacked, and three were blown up in front of
a worldwide television audience. "Our aim," said one terrorist,
"was to get our cause before world public opinion."11 Without
mass media coverage of the terrorist act, this would not have been
possible, and the plans would probably never have been made.

PEACE RESEARCH 116

This content downloaded from

109.93.83.143 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JULY, 1981 VOLUME 13 NUMBER 3

A third area where journalists have affected international

relations is through war reporting, particularly in Vietnam.
During the early years of American combat involvement, mass media
in the United States supported government policy. Between 1965
and 1967, for example, CBS specials on the war were little more
than a podium for the official government position.12 Moreove
a 1967 Newsweek survey indicated that television had encouraged
support for the war. When asked whether television coverage had
made them feel more like "backing up the boys in Vietnam" or
more like opposing the war, 64% expressed support for government
policy while only 26% expressed opposition.13

This changed, however, as U.S. combat deaths mounted and as

victory remained illusive. In 1968 Walter Cronkite toured Vietnam
after the Tet Offensive and reported in effect that the United
States could not win. From then on, there was a gradual change in
media coverage of the war. By 1972, American television networks
advocated an end to the war.

It is likely that mass media actually changed the American

public's attitude toward the War and required a change in govern
ment policy. Robin Day, a BBC journalist, argues that the War's
invasion of American living rooms created a spirit of anti
militarism. One wonders, he writes, if in the future, a democracy
which has uninhibited television coverage in every home will ever
be able to fight a war, however just. The full brutality of
combat will be there, close up, in color; and blood looks very red
on the television screen.11*

Mass media has also affected international relations in its

coverage of major disasters, making millions aware of human suf
fering. People saw the genocide and resulting starvation in
Cambodia. In covering these hideous events, in showing the faces
of starving children, journalists have pricked the conscience of
many, and relief efforts have been given popular suport. As a
result, thousands have been saved.

Finally, journalists have helped to bring together the

spirit of humankind in reporting certain events which transcend
national boundaries. Today, millions can share the Olympics and
other international sporting events. They can enjoy art, music and
dance from around the world. They have shared pictures of human
beings walking on the moon. These kinds of experiences may help
to bring people together, recognizing the brotherhood and sisterhood
of the human race.

Journalists have changed diplomacy and the conduct of inter

national relations, achieving great power to influence events.
It is hoped that with this new power will come a sense of res
ponsibility for peace, compassion and justice.
PEACE RESEARCH 117

This content downloaded from

109.93.83.143 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JULY, 1981 VOLUME 13 NUMBER 3

NOTES

1. The author expresses appreciation for the work and advice

of Patricia A. Karl, "Prime-Time Diplomacy," The Journal
of Social and Political Studies, Fall 1978, pp. 275-285.

2. James Reston, "Those Leaky Taps are Safety Valves,"

The New York Times, June 24, 1974.

3. James C. Thompson, Jr. "Reporters and Officials," a review of

Leon V. Sigal, The Organization and Politics of News Making
in The New York Times Book Review, Feb. 17, 1974, p. 14.

4. Lee Byrd, "Woodcock Sees U.S. Establishing Full Peking Ties,"

The Washington Post, February 2, 1976; "Woodcock's Views on
China His Own, State Dept. Says," The Washington Post,
February 3, 1978.

5. John Krizay, "Foreign Correspondent: The Diplomat's Fantasy,"

Washington Journalism Review, Jan/Feb 1978, p. 60,

6. Daniel Schorr, "Nixon and the Tangled Web in 'Ellsberg Papers'

Case," The Buffalo Evening News, May 7, 1978.

7. Thompson, p. 15.

8. James C. Thompson, Jr., "Government and Press," The New

York Times Magazine, November 25, 1973, p. 48.

9. "Most People in U.S. Unaware of Situation in Quebec,"

The Globe and Mail, May 9, 1977,

10. Peggy Simpson, "Carter Reportedly Asked Post for Hussein

Story Restraint," The Washington Post, February 26, 1977,

11. Quotes in a Video Broadcast, "The Palestinian Guerrilla,"

produced by the BBC, 1974.

12. Edwin Diamond, The Tin Kazoo: Politics, Television and the
News (Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press, 1978), pp. 114-116.

13. Barry Rubin, International News and the American Media

(Beverly Hills, CA; Sage, 1977), p. 29.

14. P. Knightly, The First Casualty (New York: Harcourt

Brace, 1975), p. 411.

PEACE RESEARCH 118

This content downloaded from

109.93.83.143 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:40:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms